The Sun. — London, England, 1838-02-14 00:00:00

l le; (the Chen:''tor of t to t x b e;:ier's) ilonourable mode the Friend (hareinquiry sh,tilb'erecnoenhriuc't%,ead4, -': 4 lteetirer by an examina.ion at the bar of the lionse, or by a Select Corn . rni:ttee It had been fre quently denin rmed that, in all cages in wilihit a better mode of inquiry could be adopted than by examination atthe t b ?d ar . of the /louse , that better mode should be ado p.. He thought that in this case a Committee of five or seven Members would bring before the !louse the facts upon which the allegations in the petition erre founded in a more satisfac t or '.manner than could be arrived at by examination at the bar. exi . ieht be said, that in the case cf an ordinary petition, where he tewas proof of the forgery of an individual name, provided I eothers were valid, this cught not to prevent the House re eiving the Petition as the petition of those whose signatures were valid. But a petition under the Grenville Act must be viewed in another and fully as important a light, es F,Oll - with the question of recognizances. I!, upon the petition of A, B, and C, it turns out to be the petition only of B and C, and the signature of A is proved to he forged, it was a question, for the lawyers in that House to- decide whether the sitting Member was not deprived of his power to recover his costs from the other parties. Again, he (the Chan cellor of the Exchequer) would ask, whether it would net by best to appoint a Committee to consider of this case, instead of reviving that evil, to remove which the Grenville Act was passed—the evil arising from deciding upon such cases as this upon the evidence of witnesses at the bar. Mr. F. FRENCH remarked that there was another wit nese who would swear that Tyler hid told him be had not signed the petition.—(oh, oh, from the Oeposition.) He vos not aware that he had said anything to cause those excla neetioase The Hon. Bart. (Sir R. Inglis) had forgotten that in thj- Carrickfergus case some of the signatures to the petitien Were admitted to be authentic; and this was the case in the A thlone p etition. He contended that if one of the signatures ei a a no t g enuine, that the whole petition fell to the ground. Mr. B L W' ITT believed that it R as the invariable pm "- - *the Grenville Act, ties pf this House, under the provieons e. • .. .teen of the before the Committee entered into the consiuen._ . slidd merits of the petition, to inquire first if the petition itset. been properly got up and signed. Mr. GOULBURN said that the Hon. Member had very correctly described the practice of Committees under the Grenville Act—(Hear) —and he had only omitted to state further, that if the petition appeared not to be formal in all respects, the Committee had only to report the fact to the House, in order to have it discharged; the consequence of which would be that the parties would be saddled nith the costs. Ile for one begged it to be distinctly understood as not wishing to interfere w ith the inquiry in this case ; but on the other hand he was decidedly against allowing statements of this sort to interfere wit!) the trial of petitions—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition . bencht4.l—hecause if they were to proceed lightly on an allegation that a e'fq.s6l3 Ireland had told another a particular fact, and t hi s ,ht a . period so near the trial of the merits of the petition its.,7l(' they would admit a practice which would be found product:7' °fe the greatest inconvenience, and which would have the etZ t of defel ' e ing the provisions of the Grenville Act.—( Hear, "ear' ; He warned the House against adopting the suggestion... of the Right Honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to appoint a Select Committee in this case. Unless it were in the first place distinctly understood that the Committee was to proceed to their decision, even if the person on whose assertion the main fact in this petition rested was not produced ; because he had not the slightest doubt, if they did not take this precaution, some Hon. Member would state to the House that the wit ness had not as yet come over, and would move that the trial of the petition be postponed until his evidence could bo obtained. If it were true that there was a gentleman present prepared to prove that he saw the signatures attached by the parties— ( Hear, hear,)—he thought the only obvious way of considering the question, was for the party to come forward to substantiate it. Whether the House would refer it to the Electicise Committee itself, to decide whether the petition was properly signed or not, or would call witnesses to the bar, to state the facts, was for the House to decide. He was anxious that the fact should not escape inquiry. In one case or the other, the inquiry would be satisfactory, and he should be very much guided by the feeling of the House as to adopting one course or the other. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL agreed with the Hon. Member opposite, that these petitions ought not to be made use of for the purpose of influencing the Election Committee. The petitioners ought to make out a case before the day ap pointed for the Ballot.—( Hear.) But according to precedent, and on principle, it seemed to hire that the better course would be to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee, which might hear the evidence on both sides, and report, if the pe tition should not be genuine, that the order for taking it into consideration should be discharged—if genuine, that the Committee should be duly appointed.—( Hear.) Now, although he was of opinion that the petitioners should be called upon to substantiate his case, he did not think that an examination at the bar of the House would answer the purpose. The next question was, would the House refer it to the Election Committee ? According to all pre. cedent, since the passing of the Grenville Act, a preliminary inquiry had taken place, and he thought five' or seven Members should be named for that purpose, ,chq would meet to-morrow, and report without delay to the House; Sir R. PEE L thought, in a case of so peculiar a nature, the House should not devolve such a duty on a Select Committee. The facts of the case were these :—The election petition was to be considered on Thursday next, and the present petition was presented en Tuesday, two days previous to the ballot. The Hon. Member by whom the petition was presented had stated that he was prepared now to prove that one of the signatures was not authentic, and that he had reason to believe that the two others also were not genuine. Li his opinion the present inquiry ought to he brought to a close in the course of to-morrow, because Thursday was the day named for taking the Election Petition into consideration. The House should be aware how it established a precedent for having a preliminary inquiry, which might make it impossible to proceed with the inquiry in the Election Committee. In his opinion it would be much better for the House not to call in the evidence to-day, but to fix the consideration of the subject for to-morrow ; the House itself instituting the inquiry. Thus placing all parties upon an equality--enabling the Honourable Member for Roscommon to prove the assertion he had made, that one of the signatures was not genuine, and enabling his Gallant Friend, on the con trary, to prove that it was. If the Election Petition stood for Thursday week instead of Thursday next, there could be no objection whatever to appointing a Select Committee • ' but as the time was so short, it wo u ld be better for the House to institute the inquiry itself.--( Hear, hear.) The House ought, in his opinion, to guard against the establish ment of an inconvenient precedent ; but, at the same time, if he should hear from the Chair that the Election Committee would be competent to take the subject into consideration, and give the sitting Member redress, that would be satisfactory to him. But if there should be any doubt on the subject of the institution of a preliminary inquiry, his present opinion was that the House ought to institute the inquiry itself, and take the subject into consideration to-morrow. Mr. O'CONNE LI, said it was but fair to state, that if the matter was referred to a Select Committee, the petitioners would be deprived of the benefit of Mr. Moffett's testi mony as a witness. Mr. Moffatt was one of the sureties for the petition, and therefore could not be examined before the Election Committee. Thera was no application at present for postponing the Committee, and lie thought it would be better to adopt the course suggested by the Right lion. Baronet, and inquire into it to-morrow. In the mean time lie did not know which of the petitions was the one in dispute. lie had soen three, but he did not know which was the disputed one. He thought it would not be doubted that a Select Committee would be more likely to arrive at the truth, than that it n ould be by an examination at the bar. Mr. F. FRENCH said that Mr. Moffatt was not the best person to examine at the bar. lie was the agent for the par ties against whom the petition complained ; and if the allega tions of the petition were proved, he (Mr. Moffatt) would conic under the censure of the House. Mr. Sergeant WOUL FE (who was nearly inaudible) did not acquiesce in the propriety of considering the case to morrow. Colonel PERCEVAL would withdraw his amendment, on the understanding that to morrow the ca , ,e might be discussed, and the Hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) would then have an opportunity or calling his evidence. After a few words from the CHANCELLOR cf tho Ex encouaa. Sir R. Pm., and Mr. Fay.xcn, Sir F. TRENCH said he understood the Hon. Members on both sides were prepared with their witnesses now.—( Oh. ) Col. PERCEVAL would withdraw his amendment, and moved that the petition be beard at the Bar of the House to-morrow.—Agreed to. Colonel PERCEVAL hoped the Hon. Member for Rog common would name his wit :eases no:r. Mr. FRENCH hid no objection, but they could not be called hii witnevei. OCCUPATION OF ALGIERS. Sir S. WHALLE Y rose to bring forward the motion of which he bad given notice, for a copy of the correspondence between England and France, relative to the occupation of Algiers by the latter. The Honourable Baronet said that as some explanation was necessary, he hoped the House would join him in calling on her Nljest)'s Ministers for this information. Whatever Might be the object of the occupation of Algiers by the French, he hoped that at would not be found to b 3 with a view to aggrandiv m, ne He was the more particularly induced to call the attention of the House to this subject, in consequence of soms expressions that had very lately fallen from some of the Members of the Chamber of Deputies in France. ele was far from entertaining any petty jealousy to France, on t..e contrary, be was rather p'.easei that they had ex,ir pated nest of pirates which formerly infested'it ; but at the serae tile* he could not help remembering that France hard stated that the object of tle- expditiou thither was to avenge outraged humanity alone. He regretted, however, that France had not taken counsel of the other great Powers of Europe before abe get about colonising Algiers. In a time of peace it might be well for England that France occupied Algiers. At all events . , for the protection of our trade, it was better she should be mistress of it than the pirates. But he could not help thinking that in a ti me of war it would not he altegeth er such an advanta,ge to this country. The Go vernment of England were bound to have a distinct and spe cific assurance from the French Government that they did not wags a war of aggrandisement in Africa. It was said in the time of Lord Exmouth's expedition by some t hat Al g iers wee 'almost impregnable ; while others, on the contrary, asserted that it could be easily taken it was so weak ; but he ( Sir Samuel Whalley) had it from good authority that so much was it the former, that, were it not that tte expedition had been materially assisted by the elements the city would never have submitted. Under these circumstances he thought those who THE SbN, n'' N O • FELRUAIIS 14, IL:3'B „1-4 WEDN ;-‘, said that it would be no disadvantag. to Gre-at Britain it France Pozsessed even the entire coast o f Africa, ease to to')basty a conclusion. H.! hail jealou=s jealou of France ;he wished, on the contrary, that not only the country,. but the people, sheuld be cordially nnited with England. But ~.he ccu!d not help hearing in mind that France had not the same value for the blessings of commerce as England--that sue was at present an essentially military nation—and that even the snows of Russia bed not beer` able to cool her wsrlike ardour. However, he trusted that Francelwould give up the idea of further conquest in Africa, and turn her attention to the arts of peace and civilisation. Mr. M ACKINNON seconded the motion, in which, how ever, he only agreed so far, that Parliament should i.ave an opportunity of receiving a decided explanation from the Government respecting the occupetion of Algiers. The Honourable Gentleman then went into a history of Alg,iers from 1783 — i t s populatim, policy, mode of Government and warfare with England and France, the great e r p art of which w as imperfectly heard in the Gallery. Three separate arguments had been urged against permittiniz the French to continue their occupaeion — Fi: et, the dangers to aeiee if they extended their conq uests eastwaed- to Egypt, aed subsequently to British India. Secondly, the dan gers likely to result to English commerce in the event, of a war, by the issutg of letters of marque from Algiers by France. Thirdly, the extension of conqte - 43s westward and southward, to Morocco and Senegal. ThC "geond ohjec tion WAS the only one that deserved an answer, but he thought that. •Aith the confessed superiority of 13e!tish seantaa4hie, and the change which the introduction of steam-ships had Cfau3cd in naval warfare, no danger need be apprehended, for Eng land could by their aid blockade Algiers now as easily as be fore.—(Laughter.) If there was any danger likely to arise 0 British commerce in the Mediterranean it was from the pro ceedings of Russia, who had in a vast number of instances violated the stipulations of the treaty for the suppression of piracy. He hoped that the Noble Lorl would give the papers referred to, and thereby enable the House to judg=e fairly of the merits of the question. Lord PALMERSTON said it was not his iatention to oppose the motion of his Hoe. Friend for papers relative to the --ration of Algiers, presuming that he referred to the car °e- --. - which had oeeurred in IS3O, immediately File respondence . ' 'e that event, anti which had been laid vious and subsequent ,( Laughter.) These papers ..e . . ; s , before the other House le 3-ne : andte he thought that hal net yet been laid before this :u se -.. '.. eroduction.—( A it had every right to be stratitied by then laugh.) The Hon. Gentleman who spoke fast had g z e at considerable length into the eulject, and had viewed it in a variety of suppositious aspects. He must state his differ ence of opinion from him on the subject of the Porte's right of dominion in Algiers, previous to its occupation. The rights of the Porte were somewhat differently viewed by England and France, but decidedly admitted by Austria and others. The Home would see by the papers the pledges given by France ; and, of course, would form its own opinion of the way in which those pledges had been kept by her.—( Hear, hear.) As to the fear of French conquest on the other parts of the coast of Africa, we had similar satisfactory assurances— ( Laughter)—that France had no hostile or encroaching des signs, either on the States of Tunis or Morocco. Ho fully ' coucurrecl in one sentiment that had fallen from Lis lion. 12r1%... "d—that the people of this country did not feel such a • desire for military glory as the people of France, and that . this country was theeefere net Lkelt , to rush into an unprovoked .. ear.—(Cheers.) *.ei from Mr. MACKINNON After a few words in explanatith. and Lord PALMERSTON, Lord NIAHON said that it would, perhaps. .' . se satisfactory if the Noble Lord would inform the House of the comt,..inica tion to which he referred. Lord PALMERSTON said that the assurances, and some other of the communications, were made within the lest twelve months, but the dates of some of the despatches he would rather not give. The motion was then put from the Chair, and agreed to THE GLASGOW COTTON SPINNERS. Mr. WAKLEY said, that before he made the motion which was on the paper, he should take the liberty of t resenting to the House a number of petitions which had been entrusted to him, and which had reference to the case of the Glasgow Cotton-spinners. The first was from the inhabitants of Dews bury, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, unanimously and re. spectably signed, and praying for an inquiry into the case of the cotton-spinners, and also for a mitigation of their sentence. He also had other petitions from Johnstone, from Kingston on- Hull, from Brighton, from this bookbinders of London, from the carpenters and joiners of Glasgow, from a Society of Operatives assembled in York, and from Rotherham : which all prayed for inquiry into the case, and a mitigation of the sentence, and some of which, in addition, desired an inquiry into the nature and character of Unions ; and some of which also expressed the belief of the petitioners that the charges preferred were unfounded. He also had a petition from the Working Men's Association of Bristol, in which there was a ' peculiar proposition, which was, that in the event of his ( Mr. Wakley's) motion being negatived, and the amendment of Mr. O'Connell adopted, for the institution of an inquiry into the subject of Unions and Combinations, the Committee which should be appointed should consist half of Members of this House and half of working men.—( A laugh.) The propo sition was a novel one, and he bad no hesitation in saying that such an inquiry would give very great satisfaction to the working classes. Mr. FIELDEN presented a petition from Edinburgh, and a petition from Glasgow, also praying fur an inquiry into the case of the cotton-spinners, and a mitigation of their sentence. Mr. WAKLEY then rose and said that he believed that there was no subject which could have been brought forward in that House which was so unpalatable as that to which his motion Lad reference; but he trusted that the character of tho House would not suffer in the eyes of the country from the fact cf there being only one 'individual who was prepared to Crone forward and argue a question which was regarded with a feeling of hostility by all Hon. Members.--( Cries of " no, no.") If the opinion intended to be conveyed by this expree sion of " no" really existed, he was glad of it; but he must say thai the public mind was most firmly disposed to entertain a feeling of predjudice against the unfortunate cotton-spinners of Glasgow. Nor was this prejudice the effect only of recent ;disclosures; for at the time of summoning the jury many of .those who were called upon to act had written to the officer requesting that they might be exempted, and declaring their belief that, from the prejudice which then existed, they would be unable to give an impartial verdict in the case, al though they would be sworn to give such a verdict only as would bo warranted by the evidence which should be adduced before them. From the very moment of the assassination of the unfortunate man Smith in Glasgow, the press and the authorities of the place had striven tea cast a prejudice on the Cotton-spinners, aed to point them out as the persons by whom the murder was committed ; for after the death of the unfortunate man, certainly in a most de plorable manlier, a proclamation was issued, offering a re ward of 600 guineas to any one who should give such ii,f ,r -mation and evidence as would lead to the apprehension and conviction of the offenders-4 Hear, hear)—and also at the same time declaring that there was every reason to be lieve that the cotton-spinners had committed the murder. Thus, at the very outset, the parties were prejudged, and the formation of a conviction was induced in the public mind that the assassination was, in truth, the act and deed of the Union of Cotton spinners. Now, what was ths history of the case? Ira the year 1536' the working men in Glasgow, the cotton-spinners, considered that they were under-paid ; and he believed that it would be admitted by Honourable Members that they were entitled, in conse quence, not only to enter into a consideration of the subject, but also to combine to protect themselves. It was on the 22d of July last that Smith was shot, as lie was returning home between eleven and twelve o'clock, and it was on the following Wednesday that the proclamation was issued. On the 3d of August the Sheriff of Glasgow, with a posse of constables, visited the Committee of the cotton-spinners, and they seized eighteen persons, and took possession, in addition, of all the papers and documents found in the room. Tho individuals seized were all consigned to a gaol, and from that time until the 10th of October the public prosecutors, it was to be supposed,. were engaged in collecting evidence agaiest tleem. Their trial, however, was postponed from- time to time, and the indict ment which was at first delivered to the egents of the pri. senors was withdrawn, and a second served, through which it would have been imagined that it was impossible fur the prisoners to have escaped, and the trial at length, after various further postponement, at length in the first week in January carne on. The Lord Advocate was public prosecu tor, and was therefore present at the vial, and he was glad to sec him now in his seat, because he would be able to give a distinct account of all the transactions which had passed iii Court under his own notice ; but the House, in receiving those statement s from the Learned Lord, must not forget the cha racter in which he appeared at the trial, and could not expect that he could entirely divest himself of the feeling which lie must have entertained there ; the posnion in at - Bich be was placed being that of Counsel for the Crowe, and, in fact, he being in that House in the some capacity, ant to defend hiss own conduct, and that of the individuals who had acted under his advice. He (Mr. Wakley) was un acquainted with the nature of law proceedings in Scotland, and he was much rejoiced et it, if the proceedings in this case were to he taken as a sample of the manner in which they were carried on. But it was said that the law was so made that large flies should escape, while the little insects should be caught is the meshes of the net set fornitsm. This appeared to have been the case in the present instance ; but it was ex-. traordinary how the prisoners had es :aped the full punishment of the law. The indictment contained twelve counts, on three only of which had the prisoners been found guilty, notwith standing at the trial the witnesses had been allowed to state facts connected with meetings which had taken place years befule, at a time when none of the piiso.iers were more than six or seven yews of age, and with which the witnesses themselves were acquainted only by hearsay ; but such a mode of trial was utterly inconsi,nent with justice. In the indictment there was a count for vitriol-throning, a count for arson or fire-raising, a count for murder, and others which alleged crimes to have been committed, of which, if the prisoners had been guiity, they might certainly have been thought the- vilest culprits who were ever brought into a court of justice. The first count was that the prisoners agreed to use intireidethm, molestation, and threats to spinness, and deter th em f rom ta ki eg works the eee cond was, that the tteard committee and the prisoners ..greed to set upon the spinners, and assault and molest the new hands employed; the third count was to the same effect, and alleged the molestation and assaults to have been on the return from work of the spinnere; the fourth count a ll ege d t h at t he pri soners and others had censpired to act fire to Messrs. Hussey'; factory, and hired a pereoe to do so, to whom they offered a reward of 201. to complete the act, by Ctimwing a packet of 1 combustibles into the yarn-room. The fifth count wee 014 the prisoners and others appointed a secret select committee, who were hired to send threatening letters to employers, and to set fire to a cotton-mill, and forcibly to invade the dwelling house of a spinner, end to commit assaults on spinners, and to shoot and murder a spinner, and thatthese acts were done and comreisted. The sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth cod eleventh counts set cut fee various acts alleged to have been committed :n the fifth court, and the twelfth count alleged the murder of John S.rith. These men, thin, who were thus so grievously and foully calumniated, were only convicted of a conspiracy to raise wages and also for assault, for which this meet acvere sen tence was passed en them. He should now proceed to call the attention of the House to what was said by the judge who summed up the evidi nee and sassed sentence en the prisoners. With regsrd to the charge of murder, it was most emphati cally stated that if the evidence of Christie wee not believed, the erisoners roust be acquitted. It was also eteeed ihat the chase against the Fuer prissies t s or hiring Maclean was defi cient in proof, With reaper: to the charge of murder against Kielce:* himself. he cave no further opinion than by seying that, if they ier believ the alibi witnesses, Maclean could not be the murslerer, With rsspect to the threatening letters, he add, " As to the charge against. Mecneil writing a:ld sendieg the threa'enieg letter to Mr. Arthur, it was not proved." Al though, there the judge sa id that the charges could not be believe , ' as to the murder and threatening letter, ho inti meted to the jury, at the conclusion of the etireriiing up, that with regded 'te the charge of threatening letters, the jury would judge from what quarter they could come, but fsem nergons halting the most liyele intereet in the Associa tient, and so with regard to the attempt at fire-raising ; and iii such elwervatlons on t t en.s. ersii of the judge were malted the spleen or; jeitieft hi i'.cotla . o4. Ageie, on Messing sentence on the prisoners, the Lord Jestice Clerk said, " It is for the purpose of deterring etiners from persisting in their evil courses, and of bringing that part of the community with which yen are connected back into a state of order," 4c. Lord Mackenzie said, " We most keep in view the distinction be tween the crime preyed, awl that which wee ehergesi end pot proven." He (Me. Wekley) could lot help saying that it was a remarkable thing that a judge should make such ob see sr:Aloes. It was in fact passing sentence for a crime of rel3ch they bad not been found guilty ; they had poi been found guilty of munder of wrieieenthreatening letters, but the language of the judge was to ihe effect that they were guilty. Lprci Moncrieff said that the inlictrnent need two i lietinct instances of intimidation and assault on . the pert of the guard committee. In the irst indictment the two assaults he had alluded tp were not mentioned. He should like to b row under what statute or what taw a misdemeanour Of the kind these persons had been found guilty of could be punished with „ c .„ y e ete s' transportation. An Hon. Gentleman below hiss said by the common Is l issali hp ( Mr, Waklyv) conte nd e d that the common lax of England "did not admit of such a punishment for a simple misdemeanour. In 1825 the Legis lature passed an Act fur the repel 0 the combination laws. In one of the sections of this Act it was stated that "combina tions of workmen had taken place in England, Scotland, and Ireland, often to a great extent, to raise and keep up their wages, to regulate their hours of working, and to impose restrictions on the masters respecting apprentices or others whom they may think proper to employ, end that the laws have not hitherto been effectual to prevent such com binations ; that it was expedient that the atatute laws that interfere in these particulars between masters and workmen should be repealed, and also that the common law under which a peaceable meeting of masters or workmen nay be prosecuted as a conspiracy should he altered." The common low had not been acted upon since the appointment of the Committee in the year before the act was passed. Of that Committee ii;s Hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny—to whom the working classes, for his indefatigable and aisle exer tions in their behalf, must ever owe a debt of gratitude--was Chairman, and drew up a most able report on the subject, to he Legged to direct the attention of the House . H e e wb ee i i cu' e e , actors cue to the Act he had just referred to, that the c ombination at .71...`isiorf was illegal. There might be certain ac ts committed ny certain . oersons connected with the combi the highest legal autho rity . n a ti o f n o .w. sayinghic h were that illegal t. h e c ; r out om n i h n e n l i t But, even in cases of illeg al combination what Ms the punish ment under this Act ? In o ne of the sections of it it was i : ju d s itself nut illegal. enacted, " that after the passing of this Act any person found guilty of violence towards any person or persons or property, or by threats or intimidation forcing, or endeavouring to o f.. roe, any workman or jour ne y man to depart from his hiring leave his work, or preven tin g or endeavouring to prevent any person not being hired or employed from accepting, by threats or intimidation , any work or hire, shall be im prisoned and kept to ha rd labour for a p eriod not - exceeding three calendar months." He mi g ht be told that this Act did not extend to Scotlan d. He would ask wh y it did not ? It appeared, however, that the usual clause for this purpose was not in the Act, and the common law was revived with regard to Scotland. If any p arties in En g land were found guilty of the charges these persons were found guilty of, and which was called conspiracy in Scotland, they would be liable to only three months' imprisonment ; but in Scot land they would, it appeared, be liable to have a sentence of transportation for seven ]ears passed on them. Seeing the nature of the evidence adduced on the trial, what he then in tended to call for was a full inquiry into the nature of the Cot ton-spinning Association. He did not intend to propose the two resolutions which he had given notice of, but should confine himself to the first of them.—(llear.) Ile intended to do so, because he thought tlsat it would be more prudent to with- , draw his second resolution ' relying as lie did on the friendly feelings of Members, and even on the good feelings of those who, even if they had committed errors in their proceedings, had done so from ignorance. He brought no charges against the Executive Government—he brought no charges against the Lord Advocate, or against the other legal advisers of the Crown ; for he believed that if be had been situated as they were situated, and with the nature of the state ments laid before them, he should have acted in the same way that they had. It was, indeed, impossible that they should not pay so m e att ention to the repre sentations made as to the circu ms t an ces alleged, to be _ire-me Ms°e attendant on the proceedings of the Cotton A, i -rthero, it dation. After the alarming statements made to was the duty of the Government to make th e most rigoreeonues search and investigation into the alleged proceedings. T question, however, was, whether the feelings and ima,gto a liens of the authorities had not been axeited by t he sup. posed proceedings of this association, and wh ether a mo re severe punishment bad not been passed on these m en than t he circumstances of the case required ? He, therefor e, on these grounds, made no charge against the Executive Go vernment; from but he asked, lie implored, them not to send these men the country until the whole case had been fully investigated. When a case was before a court of law, it often happened that the matter turned upon seine technicality. If the case was alluded to in the House, it was instantly nice with the objection, from gentlemen on one s id e o f the House or the other, that there was no pr ece d ent . H e did not think that it always happened that a court o f j u stice was the had favourable place for investigating such charges as been brought forward with respect to this asso ciation ; but before a Committee of th at H ouse the whole matter most would be investigated in the fairest and moat favourable the g manner. Ile would ask wh e th er t h e H ous e or c ountry would gain anything by sendin these men out of Engla nd? If they awarded the pu n i s h ment w hi c h wa s imposed by the statute, they could not awar d more than t h ree months' intri" soament to these men ; b ut accord i ng to t h e l aw authoriti es on the other side of the Tweed, the offence was to be p unished with seven years' tr ans p ortat i on. A few years ago the siz Dorchester laboure r s were, i n the opinion of many Members of that House, most pr o p er l y sent out o f t h e c ountry for hav ing taken an ille ga l oat h ; b ut was there then a single Member in the House wh o was not convinced that t h ese m en were mosthardly and s evere l y pun i shed, on being-, con victed unde r the 57th of Geo. 111. c f t a ki ng an illegal s oeth ? That was the only breach cf th e l aw o f which those men were guilty, and for which th e y were sent out of the country. The sente nce on those men h a d b een resc i nded, and one o f them had re turned to this count r y, but the oth r five men had not b een heeled of. Ile w arne d t h '*thin o House against acting in a g , lik- a spirit of hostility tothe workin' m illions of Eng lishmen. Such a course could not b ut be attended with the greatest danger, and he would t e ll H onoura bl e G e ntlemen opp fe e lings of tilel not to suepose that they could lon u phold the C onservative institutions of the country whe n t l ie f ee against them. lie begged the House to recollect that the werenGt represented i, spread i that amongsti,uuse and indeed working classes were not the ignorant body that they were people were formerly said to be, but that knowledge and intelligence peculiar quelificition which' prevented the working men front sending any of their own clas s into . that House, and in ad dition to th it, the franchise mindeeTliita.htelyarhgaed body created weea ex cluded the larger portion 'of? t ti e ven by the Reform Bill , Hear, hear, hear,' from the Opposition benches ) Honourable ni.(" Gentlemen op posite cheered, but were they, when they appeared to think with him that the Reform Bill was not a perfect or sufficient mcasure, prepared to go further—would they support a propo sition for Universal Suffrage? H o was sure that the result would be that the working millions in this country would force their demands on the attention o f th e Honse until their just claims were heard with surr e a l . Th e Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had given notice of an ame n dment to his motion. The lion. and Learned Gentleman saidtlia favcurable to inquiry. This was all that the members t he w" of the Trades' Unions demanded ; they said that they were anxious for the fullest investigation, so that they r might most have an opportunity of removing the imputations wlichi been cast on their characters. In consequence of what had taken place in the sister island, his Hon. and Learned Friend made an attempt to disabuse the public min d— ( it sse Air, hear)—of the working classes as to certain transactionsconnconnected connected with the combinations , and as to tomeunfortunate oil'.cts they had had on the tra de of Dublin ; in consequence of this he was charged with bein g hostil e to the interests of the w racing classes, and an attempt was made to ex c it e the fs clings of the people against him. lie (Mr. W h id ey ) b e - Foved that the charge was without foundatio n , and that nothing of the kind was true —indeed his whole life w as an answerto t.e charge. — ( Hea r, hear.) Whether the House agreed to the inquisy on his motion or on that of hie Honourable and Learned Friend was immaterial ; all that he req u i re d was that the inquiry should be full anti complete, an I that the unfortu nate men who had been convicted in Scotland should be re tained in this country until the investigation was at an end. Because the combination laws had been repealed, Honourable Gentlemen thought that the working men acted improperly if they made any provision for a future time out of thir w-ckl wage - , ~.p far from this, he thought that the working ma ) :1 des e rved credit for making provision out of his wages, to -- apply it when the day of e ant came ; and it was quite immaterial adi e tl i er this was done by union amongst the werkin' class es or o therwise. Indeed it was e question with him whether g th law should not do a little more than it did at present fur the protection of the interests of the working classes. The fact was, that there was nothing but combinations amongst the rich from one end of the country to the other.—( Hear, hear.) He had no hesitetion in saving tleatehere was a trade union in that House. The landed proprietiire in tl4l House PO4 ft tBl u ed the .... .. large majority, and took - care to prevent any alteration in the law which would make corn cheap. By doing so they thinned the blood of the peodle, and kept down plethora among them. He trusted, therefore, that gentlemen in that House would be more chary for the future in making such charges against the working classes. His Ilonourable and Learned Friend the Memb,.!r for Dublin condemned the work- men of that city because they did not allow each tradesman to have more than a certain number of apprentices. He did not, however, condense a similar practice which existed in his own profession, for no attorney was allowed to have more than two - spprentices ; and they not only had an arrangement amongst themselves, but they got a statute passed for the purpose That rule, therefore, which was highly approved of with regard to lawyers, was most strongly condemned in other trades. Again, had they not a trade union in the Temple ?—( Hear, hear.) Had they not in that place a recent and remarkable instance of conspiracy against the genius and abilities of the extraordinary man . near him _(hear, hear)—which had prevented bins se quirng that station and wealth in the profession which his talents would have insured to him ? Whon there was such a re markable instance of the preventing the acquisition of rank and wealth in a liberal profession, by a combination of detestable clique In the heart of the metropolis, they should not make such loud complaints of combinations of working men at dis tant places, w h o h a d suc h diffi cu lti es to contend with.—( Hear, hear,) T, a They ought punishough t not with to t b o ut ul sanctionost rigour su c h a poor stat e and of f u th n i f n o g r : in the law, tunate men who attempted to :airs an addition to their scanty earnings, and to obtain bread for themaolves and families. This ' was the system that was pursued with regard to the working classes ; and he 7e.v s ld /IA any Honourable Member whether he vtonla nt:4 blush if he thought that those men were his countrymen who could patiently submit to the infliction of such hardships on them as tho working classes have been subjected to 7 \Vi t en the same class of persons fought the battles of the country, na praise that could be bestowed on them was Lo greet, there was no limit to the praises bestowed on their brave soldiers awl, gallant tats t and the class whose cause he , p , a 3, I y i d e c weret e d were possess ed fathers and b o r fotthheers same e hos f e ec u li p r o g n whom praise w as so lavishly bestowed. He knew not how s 1 and habits to tetra Ow question berore the House in any other manner I than that which he had stated. He knew that there was the greatest repugnance to discuss questions in that House, which involved anything lilte an appeal from the decision of a cotqt of tat'et. 'lt woe the common custom to state that it was inexpedient to make that House a court of appeal from courts of law; but he would ask to what other tribunal could they eppeel Where could matters of this :ion he ao properly discussed as in that House ? ( Hear, hear, hear.) It should bo remembered that the judges were not the masters of the public, but the servants, He did not wish to make any remarks on the conduct of the Judges in any Court of Law all that he was anxious for was securing the conAdence and respect of the people. He would ask the Learned Lord Advocate under what English Statute these men could be transported. He teas aware that under the 9th of Gce. IV, it liad been maintained that if they conspired to coutuait assaults they could be capitally indicted. They were not, however, indicted under this Statute, indeed no mention was made of it ; he therefore thought the indict ment was framed under the common law, All the papers of the Association were seised by the Sheriff when the docu ments of the Committee were taken by surprise; and he would ask what internal evidence these documents exhibit 0 f the existence of an illegal Association? But suppose that these persons were present when the assault was com mitted, did it justify them in passing on the prisoners a sentence of transportation for seven years? After the enactment in the Act of Parliament, which he had read to the House, he was of opinion that the highest punish ment that should be inflicted on the prisoners was imprison ment for three months. By taking an analogous case he thought that a great light might be thrown on the sub ject. He intended to direct the attention of the House to the analogous ease of the Orange Association. He knew that some lion. Members might object to any allusion to the Orange Association, but he did so because it would show in what a different manner the law was administered to this exalted body, and to the humble association of workmen. It was well known that the Orange Association was an illegal bedr, and it was rendered so by the oath taken by its mem bers. With respect to the Glasgow Association, it was as ',lied that an oath was administered : three of the witnesses fir the Crown denied that there was such an oath in that body ; again, four of the witnesses for the Crown denied that th e re was any Secret Committee in connection with the as sociation. Such, indeed, was the contradiction on the part of the witnesses for the Crown, that it was surprising that the Counsel for the prisoners thought it expedient to call any wit nesses for the defence. I f this had taken place, he "thought that the Lord Advocate would have felt that he had been placed in rather an awkward situation. He would proceed to make a few remarks .as to what had taken place before the trial.. Ha had already said that 6001. had been offered for information which would lead to conviction. But :how were the witnesses treated before the trial ? The four chief wit nesses for the Crown were confined together in one room. These men were members of the Association, were con fined together in one room, and they were in expecta tion of receiving the 6001. if their evidence should con. vict the prisoners. Need he add that, by pursuing this coiarso, the witnesses had every opportunity of agreeing to the evidence they should give, and of framing it in a way which vvas most likely to lead to conviction? On the trial no objection was allowed against the testimony of these wit nesses, although they had lived together; but the judges re fused to receive the evidence of two witnesses for the defence, because they had previously to the trial signed a declaration that Macneil was not on the spot when the murder was com mitted on the night it took place. He did not understand how the impartial administi anon of justice could be promoted by receiving the evidence on one si.le, wed refusing to receive the evidence of witnesses for the defence, for the simple reason he had stated. But he might be told that the witnesses were put into gaol for protection ; there was no necessity, however, feooroppiuntzti n th g iem n i i n n o o n n e e n r a o r o l omw. spThot, p T o h t e , re w h we where 4 o" c e o ce u s ld sity ha f v u e r th " an opportunity of conversing together on the evidence they wool Ibe called upon to give on the trial. He should now return to the Orange Association, and what he wanted to es tablish was, that if the law was to be administered to the people, it should be administered with strict and undeviating impartiality.—( Hear.) It had been elicited by the Com mittee of that House which inquired into the nature of the Orange Association, that oaths were taken by its members ; yet had any of the Nobles and Right Honourables of the land who sere the leaders of that Association, been prosecuted or punished ? Not one--and why, then, inflict this severe punishment on poor men daily struggling for their bread, and who, if they had sinned in this matter at all, Lad not sinned because they were vicious ? If justice were to be ad ministered, let it be with an even hand. And what was the oath taken by this Orange Association, which boasted that it could raise 150,000 men at a minute's notice, through tise influence and interest of tlny,e who were its heads, and than which a more dangerous Association, more rife with peril to the Crown, and to all the institutions of the country, never existed in any State ? its o ganixetion was most complete, and the oath which it imposed on its members the most so lemn and binding that could be framed What was that oath ? ability, defend the present King and Royal Fam il y" —( Hear, `° I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will , to the best of my hear.) y e s—. defend the present King and Royal Family, so long as he and they support the P.otestant ascendancy." So, that here were 150,000 men taking a qualified oath of alle giance.—(hear, hear, hear.) And who were to be the judges as to whether the King supported the Prote,tent ascen dancy I Why, the heads of the Association. Well, just so long as the King, in the opinion of these parties, supported the Protestant ascendancy, and no longer, did the Associa tion pledge itself to defend the King. Then came a para graph having reference to the secrets of the Association : And I do further swear that I will always conceal and never reveal any part or parts of what is now about to be privately communicated to me, till empowered to do so by the authorised heads of the Association," &c.—( Hear, hear.) Awl who were among the heeds of this Association? The Noble Member for Bucks, opposite, the Duke of York, the Duke of Cumberland, the Bishop of Salisbury, " the Lord Prelate of the Order," Lord Lowther, Lord Kenyon, Sir Rebell Peake—not Sir Robert Peel—( A laugh)—the Mar quis of Thomond, and other nobles and great men of the land, too numerous to mention. But it might be said this was a religious Association, established only from the purest of m otives ; but he had shown that it was a political institu tion, and lie had also shown that its members took a qua lified oath of allegiance. One of the persons examined by this Committee was a Mr. Whittle, a maltster, of Rochdale, who stated that he had been an Orangeman for twenty years, but had been expelled in 1835 by the Grand Lodge, held at Kenyonni, because he had voted for the Liberal can had been expel l e d on similar g rounds. The Orange d Lo id rd ate for Rochdale; and fu rther, that several other Orange men ge rous Associa tion, but it was an unlawful one. Seeing, Association was therefore not onl y in the hi g hest degree a I:ensaf o re, that it was an unla wful Association, and that some t of the greatest men in the land belonged to it, what must be e of the working millions of this country when hey foun d prosecution had been instituted against any one the fe•el i tnigi mem ber of that Association, while people were sent hunt ince and peering about the countr y for the p ur p ose of discover in ; any persons who might have been gu i lty of violating the la " i n those trades' unions ? What he asked was, that these men should not be se n t a wa y until an in q uir y h ad be en made into t his Glasgow Cotton•spinners' Association. He asked f o r no inquiry into the trial. It m i ght perhaps be said that t here w as no parallel between the case of this Association and t at no the case of the Orange Association—that no serious outrages had a risen out of' the Orange Association. But this was a mistake. Near Glasgow itself serious outrages had been owe el by Orangemen, in one of which a constable was shot b y a n Orangemen. The murderer was taken and executed ; e nd here the question arose, if the assault at Mile-end could be traced to the leaders of the Cotton-spinners' Association, merely because the parties committing it were connected with that Association, how was it that the leaders of the Orange As sociation were not p rosecuted for th e mur der committed on the cons table by one of their body ? If there was culpability in one law criminality ie h w in the d b e o other. productiveT hi s of f a t s h a e m mode oatf r o i f g a n d t - - wished the Crown to be respocte4i, i c ef lo a i l s n e c i , e o t t n e b s r e e i r i ci l e g 4 ' e t Y l u a l jes,lf they the Courts of Justice to be beloved, they mute keep the Nun teen of justice free from all impurity and corruption. The lion. Gentleman concluded by stating that he should only on. letpber than read as follows : --" Th a t t hi s House move the first resolution of which he had given notice, which 6 q leq Committee sh eu ld . be appolotecl 1.? iV o l'ilepnion that a inquire into the coestitution, practices, aid effects of a Society which has long existed in Scotland, under the title of the Association of Operative Cotton-spinners of Glasgow and its ne ighbourhood.'" The LORD ADVOCATE said he was bound to acknow ledge the perfect courtes' with which the lion. Gentlplp had brought forward this question. But while he aeknow- the eicnesses for the Cr awn labour el. —k Finr, le Si.) ' File ledged this personal courtesy to its fullest extent, he must fact was, that they them , elv:.s had Folieit• dto be put into pri regret that, in reference to other persons. not present to de- s ,n._( Loud cries of '' hear.") They lied oe-itoel3 refused fend themselves, the Hon. Gentleman had made some obser- t o gi ve any information unless they wee lodged in a place of vations which lie (the Lord Advocate) conceived to be totally security. At a subsequent period the Sheriff wes obliged to unfounded. He referred to the opinions alleged to have bean meet them in remote parts of the town, it being deel , re.l and delivered by the Learned Judges ; and he must say that, wi t h b e li eve d, that if they were seen to go to the Sheriff's, their lives the exception of one particular allusion only, no such opinions w ould not be safe—( Hear, hear.) That they should all have had been delivered by them—( Hear, hear) ;_and before been confined to one apartment was a circumstance h re he concluded the observations he had to make, he would vetted, but that fact a culd not surmise the House when they direct the attention of the House particularly to an opinion recollected how crowded the eaols of Scotland unfortunately of the Judges in a ca-a allied to the present, and which were. These prisoners could not, under the eircrmeances, he should submit to the House, as expressing sentiments be placed in a better situ,tion ; there were no means of ero honourable to any Judge in any country. But when vii g them with a separate apartment. The pr sent con the Honourable Member complained that an observation dLion of the gaols was certainly a crying evil, which he hoped had fallen from one of the Judges to the effect that the guilty would be redressed ; it was universally acknowledged, and persons were punished for the sake of example, and not be- he trusted that the Bill brought in during the last Sea cause of what they had done, it might be asked what punish. s ion of the lest Parliament would pass in this, and provide ments at all were adjudged in any part of these realms but the Crown with the means of disposing of the prisoners as an example ? In no case was punishment dealt out on a properly. The propriety of prosecuting the leaders in criminal in satisfaction of the vengeance of the prosecuting these combinations was particularly apparent, when the party, but for the good of society alone, for the repressien situation in which the ignorant and distresstd were placed of crime ; on such grounds alone was a Judge justified in by them was considered. In such cases the uninformed, pronouncing the sentence of the law against any indi- being perhaps out of employ, and suffering from extreme dee vidual. Such a sentiment as this was doubtless uttered titution, were made to feel that while they committed crimes by the Learned Judge ; but in every other respect the they were sure of their reward from those with whom they imperfect and erroneous view which had been given by the lived and associated; but if they refused to be parties to the Honourable Member of the opinions delivered by the criminal proceeding, or if they gave information, they were Learned Judge showed that he had been entirely misinformed certain of persecution, and exposed themselves even to the as to the real facts of the case. He (the Lord Advocate) danger of losing their lives.—(Cheers.) Such being the dif regretted that he had not been present when the Honour- ficulties in the way, he always felt extremely uncertain as to, able Gentleman first brought the question before the House; what would be the nature of the evidence that might be givers, but he had had no idea, from the feeling which prevailed in It was evident that the prisoners had the means of using an Scotland respecting these proceedings, that they were likely influence far greater than that which any public prosecutor to engage the attention of the House during the short inter- could exercise.—( Hear, hear.) This state of things could not val between the assembling of Parliament and the recess. be disputed, for crimes were committed in Glasgow and its Had he been at all aware that it would be brought forward, neighbourhood sometimes under cover of the night and some he would have taken care to be in his place.—( Hear, hear.) times in the open day, and though large rewards were offered As it was, the Honourable Member would do him the justice for their detection, no person came forward lo give evidencw to admit, that since the reassembling of Parliament he —( Hear, hear.) Iz could not be expected that in such cases had manifested no desire for delay in bringing the ques- the evidence would always be clear and overwhelming; but ist tion under the considerstion of the House. On the contrary, this instance a feeling of remorse on the part of many, and a he much rejoiced that it was now before the Hous o so that desire for the restoration of tranquillity on, the part of the whole matter might be fully considered, and the justice of others who regretted the violence that had been committed, the laws of Scotland vindicated.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It had occasioned them - to come forward for the purpose c:kt been stated that many of those summoned on the jury were establishing the facts. If the House thought that Om confessedly so prejudiced as to be unfit to try the case; but law of Scotland which allowed the judges to award. % even bow stood the fact? That every advantage had been in years' transportation too severe—if the House were of opinion this report, as in others, given to the persons accused, and had that the power of the law gave to the judges to tronsport in been fully exercised by them. Not fewer than 25 challenges the one case for seven years, and in the other to r;hich he had were made to the jury by the prisoners, while not one single alluded fourteen years, let the law be altered; but while it challenge was made on the part of the Crown. Indeed, it existed it must be administered, and the House, he was sure, had seldom happened, except in cases of treason, that the would support it.—(Cheers.) The Learned Lord here re privilege of challenging had been carded so far; and he (the ferred to the case of Donovan, but owing to his occasionally Lord Advocate) might add, that so far as h e k n ew of the dropping his voice we 'were unable to hear him. The Learned public opinion of Edinburgh, very few persons there were Lord then Proceeded so allude to the case of an indi v id ua l who prejudiced on the subject. The question before the House had committed AA outrage under the direction of the associa had been in some degree placed by the Hon Gentleman on a tion. He teas apprehended and brought to trial at Glasgow more favourable footing than some other cases, where the ob- at the very time that the other trials were going on. He had iect was to bare the trial reviewed and the judgment t been previously outlawed. What followed? As was fre • -- . - - - amended, but this was disclaimed by the Honourable Gentle. man ; and being so disclaimed, he (the Lord Advocate) had no occasion to make any further remarks, except, indeed, this—that no tribunal was less fitted to try a case of this nature than either a Committee of the House or the House itself. —( Hear, hear.) He did not, however, mean for a mo ment to dispute but that if any flagrant wrong had been com mitted, that if the law was in any way defective, or if a public officer had failed_ in the discharge of his duty, the House might very properly give redress in such a case by animating the law, or addressing the Crown to remove the person who had acted in a manner unworthy of his situation; and he would say at once, that in his opinion any individual would be most unworthy of that high station who should manifest tally feelings adverse to the industrious classes; any man would exhibit himself equally deficient in all the qualities of heart or head who had not as much regard and affeedon for i as much joy and pleasure in the prosperity and happiness of these chaster, as in that of persons of station and wealth.—( Hear, hear. ) The Hon. Gentleman had observed, that he considered him. self fortunate in not having been in a country where such laws were in force. In comparing any new system of law it would be most unjust to take any one particular detail of one system and make your conclusions upon the whole from that only, and not from the other parts of the system which balanced it. It should be always recollected that the law of Scotland was far more favourable to persons accused than the law of England. He did not say that the law of Eng land in this respect was bad, or ought to be changed : it had very great merits ; it was suited to the country ; it gave great security to life and property ; it lived in the hearts and feelings of the people ; but in considering these or any other laws they must be taken into consideration one with the other, in order to see how far they were perfect or otherwise. The law of Scotland, he would repeat, gave great advantages to persons accused which they did not possess here. In the first place, and this should be attended to, as the circum stance led to some of the peculiarities which had occasioned much remark out of doors—in the first place, by the law of Scotland no crime, whether of great or small importance, could be proved against any person without the evidence of two witnesses at the least, or of one witness supported by cir cumstantial evidence confirmatory of his evidence. Take the case of a person of the highest character, who had brought forward his evidence that he had been robbed or assaulted, or otherwise aggrieved by any other inferior offence, however clear and direct his evidence, however un impeachable his character, unless the public prosecu tor could call some other witness, or prove some circumstance to confirm the evidence, the Jury would be directed by the Judge unanimously to find that the offence was not proven. Nay, a very high authority, Judge Hume, had expressed the extreme opinion that the evidence of one witness only, though this witness were a parlicaps criminis, would not be sufficient to prove an offence. Whatever might be thought of this rule, it certainly gave a great advantage to the persons accused; and persons accustomed to the administration of law in Scotland were frequently surprised in witnessing, in English Criminal Courts, persons adjudged guilty on evidence on which a conviction could nut be obtained in Scotland. This rule had led to the giving verdicts in the different forms of " guilty" or` 4 not e guilty," f 0 proven" or " not proven," because itwould be mos t unreasonable to require of a Jury , convinced by the unimpeachable testimony of one witness of the guilt of an accused person, to pronounce him not guilty, while the law of the land forbade them to declare him guilty, except on the evidence of two witneases. In such cases it was left to them to declare the offence " not proven." Another advantage was, that the accused person had a copy of the indictment furnished hien fifteen days before the day of trial, containing a narrative of the facts to be proved against him, and thus enabling him to prepare his defence. There was also at the same time furnished him a list of all the witnesses aeainst him, while here a copy of the indictment was only furnished to the prisoner on the very day of trial. These were great advantages to the accused person. Another peculiar ad vantage which the accused person possessed in Scotland, the policy of which was less clear, wes, that after the public prosecutor had concluded his case and examined his witnesses the prisoner was entitled to reply, to have the last word, and might call evidence as to alibi or any other fact in his favour; while the public prosecutor was not able to recal any witness in explanation. The Honourable Gentleman had contrasted the evidence of one person on the trial, who stated that on a particular evening a secret meeting had been held, which evidence had been contradicted by another witness, isho stated that he was in the chair on the evening in question, and that the meeting was only an ordinary one, which broke up at half past nine ; whereas, it the public prosecutor had been rah:wed to recal his witness, he could have shown that the secret meeting he deposed to took place the same evening, after the ordinary meeting, which broke up at half-past nine. The Hon. Gentleman had asked under what statute this trial had been had. The answer was, under no statute at all —no statute was mentioned. The Honourable Gentleman also asked whether the law respecting combination applied to Scot land ? Undoubtedly, yes ; there was no person who was not liable to punishment for combination. In England this offence, if accompanied with violence or menaces, was penislied with three months' imprisonment; in Scotland, this offence was tried by the Justices of the Peace or the Sheriffs. But this was a different case from simple combination, or of working moo casually committing violence against other working men. This was a conspiracy formed during a long course of years, a conspiracy seeking to ac complish its object by deeds of violence, by systematic out rage, and giving alarm to the whole community where it existed to that extent that, besides the ordinary police of the place, it had been found necessary to employ an additional force of 100 armed men to keep the peace. According to the law of Scotland a conspiracy, as defined by the Alit, was one of the most formidable crimes that could exist. That a conspiracy had existed in tills case was proved by the atro cities that lead been carried on far a series of years, by the terror that had been resorted to, by the domination that had been practised, by the despotism that had been exercised over all.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman complained of the partial administration of justice, and referred to the dif ference between the course pursued in the present case and that which was adopted in reference to the combinations and riots between the Roman Catholics and Protestants. On that subject ho begged to refer to the cases which arose out of the riots at Airdrie in 1835. It was then necessary to try both Roman Catholics and Protestants who had committed riots ; the Roman Catholics were transported for seven years, and the Protestants, whose crime was considered greater, were transported for fourteen years. Theism were, in their circum stances, the same cases as that of the association at Glas gow; the punishment awarded was not greater, and the persons were of the same description as those to whom the Hon. Gentleman had alluded. He did not think it desirable to go into all the details of the evidence in this particular cas e ; but there were one or two points to which he felt it his 'duty to allude. The Hon. Gentleman, asked were thole five :individuals, the president, the secretary, and the others, pre sent on the Occasion when the riots took place ? No, they were not ; and he would say that the crime was greater, was 'more serious and dangerous, of hit in., maintaining, and di recting the individuals whom they excited to riot, than it would have been had they exeoced their ee r, persons to the eo,.se gnencea of the grave offen a m s th at were eomea i tte d. —( Ch eers . ) l' r dp q uLlity was tench more endangeicd, and far greater ter, Tor was produced, when designing men laid their plans, and in secret advised and excited their weak and deluded victims to ,carry them into execution, and expose themselves to the just vengeance of the law.—( Cheers.) There were some Titre details, arising out of the rt,dkidiptioe or COI Case, which file Howir4ble tielltiMan had referred to, and which he could not pass over, because his doing so might create an impression unfavourable to the administration of justice in Scotland, The Honourable Gentleman spoke of the Ileaie ship of witnesses for the Crown havinf bema imprisoned for a considerable period of time beioie"the rial. Now the great 9f 0 14 'else Was attributable to the terror udder lc icll quently the case as regarded cr'enes committed under the au thority of the association, ti e man pleaded guilty thinking it, no doubt, better to t l .ea so, inasmuch Al the offence could be :, easily proposed Thomas Riddle was the prisoner's 'lame. He begged to read to the House the judgment Lord Cockburn Passee'e upon the prisoner. The Learned Lord read as follows :--- • Thomas Riddle, it is impossible not to be sorry, as well as surprised at seeing a person of your appearance where you - are. But you have committed a very great crime, and its order that neither you, nor anybody else, may have any pre tence for not understanding its atrocity, I shall tell you the facts, as stated in the indictment, to which you have now pleaded guilty. The indictment sets forth that you had struck work. But this is not your crime—it is not even a part of it. The law now entitles you, and every man, to strike work when he pleases. Your labour is your own, and you may sell it as you please. So may every other man, by law. • Whether there be certain persons who won't let this law - be acted upon we shall see immediately. The indictment also - states, that you struck in concert with a number of other ope rative cotton-spinners. But this is no part of your crime ether. The law not only allows every man to demand whet wages he pleases, and to refuse working if he does not get them, but it allows him to arrange and combine with others, its order that by concerted strikes they may make their joint de mand more effectual. Masters may combine against work men, and workmen against masters. By l aw th e mar ket of labour, like that of capital, is free. Would that the s workmen of this country had always shown themselves worthy of the recent removal of the old restrictions on the power of demanding what wages they chose, and of uniting to enforce this demand. But your crime is this—namely, that you, along with some of your associates, invaded the house in which a person lived who chose to be satisfied with lower wages than you and they were • holding out for ; that you did this under cloud of night, and' w h e n th e i nma t es were i n b e d ; t h at w i t h st i cks, stones, nt' menaces, you broke open the door, and even shook bricks ~ from the partition in which it was fixed; that you threw the inmates into a state of great terror and alarm ; and that you compelled the workman vou were in quest of, under ter., ror of personal violence, and in fear of his life, to swear or', promise he would leave the cotton-mill in which he was the"- working.' Now all this is bad ; but its chief guilt consists ire the motive and object for which it was all done. This object i sot forth to have been for the wicked and felonious purpose o compelling a workman to leave his employment,' in order the you might thereby give efficacy to your own demand. This is your crime ; that you tried to deprive that man of the disposal' of his own particular labour; that, not content with the li berty of selling your own strength and skill at your pleasure, you denied that liberty to another, and attempted, by violence" to dictate to that man the terms on which he should sell hie.--- (Cheers.) For this crime, and for its attendant circumstances, you are to be transported for seven years. If you think thilk punishment severe, this can only be because you choose to shut your eyes to the wickedness and to the plain consequences of what you and ethers have been doing. The labour of a poor man is hi s p r i nc i pa l property ; and he who robs him of this makes him a beggar. Yet there are masses of pecdn ie who set themselves up as the dictators of the market of Ise. hour, and who have the audacity to band themselves together, in defence of this tyranny. These persons not only abstai, from working themselves, which the law leaves them at perfec liberty to d o , b ut t h ey proclaim that nobody else s h a llor for less ; and if their insolent mandate be • disregarded th e y; enforce it by violence, and then declare themselves the friendl of free trad e . H ow anyth i ng so iniquitous and absur d s h o uld'` ever enter the minds of the educated people of Scotland has always appeared to me incompreh ens ible."—(Chee rs. ) He ref erre d th e H ouse to this address, which he believed to be accurately reporte d , as a fair exposition of the op i n i o ns of the Judges on th e su bject.---( Hear ) He should not consider it necessary f or hi m to d well further on the details o f t he law of:this case, if it were not that elsewhere there h a d been statements made imp ugn i ng t h e conduct, nay, attac ki'l the most violent terms the conduct of these prosecutions In Scotland.—( Hear, he.ae) It was said elsewhere that these prosecutions had been conducted in the most b un gling menner ; that the re h a d b een every sort of bl un der com mitted ; an d t h at i n consequence of those blunders the trial had been d e l a y e d, an d t h e individuals had been su bjected to a long and severe prinishment. His answer was, not onl y that the st a t ement was on t h e whole not true— (Cheers)— but that it ear; the very opposite of am thing approachingi to truth.—(Cheere.) Wi t h respect to t h e i n dictment, I , s answer was, that l aw y ers o f great a bili ty had it for a lon g _ time under th e i r cons id erat i on, an d t h e resu l t wa s that the Court una n i mous ly susta i ne d i t. O n what groun d did any Noble and Learn e d L or d, in any place, consider himself en titled to assert, without saying what it was, that there nes any defect or blunder—on what ground did he coneider himself entitled to make such an assertion, not only a gainst the whole of the authority of the professional persons Ai", had been engag e d, b ut i n oppos i t i on also to the author i ty of the Court?—( Cheers.) It was not a little extraordinary even if there had been mistakes—if in a case of such great wei g ht there had been some ov e rsi g ht ; it was not novel with those who had belonged to the profession of the law to talk in that tone and with that feeling of the proceedings ; but when there was no foundation whatever for the remarks, when it was quite clear that there was. none, it was extraordinary that any individual who had filled a high legal station for years with honour and credit should make a statement, not only re flecting on lawyers of the highest eminence, but even without the least foundation in point of fact.—( Cheers. ) The state ment was, that the trial had been delayed. Now, before the trial came on, and before its result could be known, he had ex plained that the reason why the trial had been delayed was. that the public prosecutor had received some fresh information. And was he not justified in obtaining all the important infor mation that be could ? He entered the Court with the belief that the trial would come on; but after the argument of Coun sel, accounts from Glasgow were received from the Sheriff: stating that some important documents, which before it had been impossible to recover, had been obtained, with other e im portant evid ence , an d i t was l e f t to him to say whether th trial sh ou ld go on or not. N ow, in a case of this sort, in which murder had been committed, would any public prose" cutor have hesitated to delay the trial, in order to avail him self of the fresh evidence ?—( Hear, hear.) He desired the Sheriff to pursue his inquiries, which he did, though with t h e greatest difficulty. H e could not see the witnesses, except by stealth, without exposing them to the persecution of the As sociation ; and was it to be told in the high places that this trial was delayed in order to recover blunders and e rrors--- blunders and errors t h at existed nor'. here but i n t h e fancy of the Noble and Learned Lord who thought proper to make that statement ?—( Che ers .) He supposed that the Noble and Learned Lord cou ld not be aware that he had stated the ground on whi c h th e tr i al had been delayed, because h e coni d not imagine that if he had been aware of that statement, be would have made the observations he did in reference to a per son whom that Noble and Learned Lord had keewn for forty . years, who se character, however inferior it se as for talent a nd ability, had, at least, been not less d'.etinguished for straight: forward conduct and veracity than even that of the Noble and Learned Lord himself, honourable as lie believed his chareci tee to b e ; b ut i n that humble and low ateibute to elhie ll all men might lay rtiarkible claim, he thought be was not guilty of any r e .: Preetimption in saying, thst le considered hirnsedt otailal.---( Much cheering.) Whatever had been remarked about his own abilities as a lawyer was comparetively of small e. importance, but the charge made affected not only himee . l, He did not suppose that it was meant to attack him personally ; tut, fearing that it might affect other persons, particularly a very able and rising man in his profession, when it was charged that there had been grots delay, he felt it to be has duty to com e fore and and erove to the House that this case_ had b een conducted not only nith perfect fairnees, but he trusted with zeal, lurmauitN, and mo,tcrn'ion —( Sir E. S liG DEN sa i d that b e h a d l oo k e d th i eugh the evide nce w i th a judicial eye, and if the Hon. M em b er for Finsbury bed pers i ste d i n hi s mot i on f or an a dd re ss to her Mt 9 mitigateajesty,Cheers. ) the sentence of the parties, he should